Cuba: Revolution of millions?
malecki at algonet.se
Sun Jun 23 03:04:40 MDT 1996
>At 14:13 21-06-96 +0200, Robert Malecki wrote:
>>>>Only a state cap could come up with some crumbs handed to the
>>>>Canada by the bougeoisie and its partners and the real struggle
>>>>place in Cuba involving millions of workers.
>>>How, when, where and in what were these millions involved?
>>OK, Didn,t somebody recently post some real long documents on the Cuban
>>Trade Unions. All of the Cuban reforms after taking power was a process
>>involving millions of people. Or do you think they were served to them by
>>Fidel. True the reason we say that Cuba is a "deformed" workers state
>>because it was not a workers revolution. But a guerrilla army that
>>assault. But the Nationalisations and block committees and health
>>involved millions of people. It also destroyed the capitalist class
>>and went into a transitional type state. Although in a bureaucratic
>Sudden change of terms from "millions of workers" to "millions of
>people"? Don't you usually keep these terms quite distinct??
Sorry Jorn i apoligise. But stop throwing up a smoke screen. The issue here
is the fact that the capitalist class was overthrown and the struggle
involved millions of people a big difference then developments in Canada..
>The Social Democratic welfare states also "involve" millions of
>people, even of workers. Also in health care. What was built in Cuba
>*after* the revolution were organs for class collaboration, not organs
>for class power. Sometimes such argans can be quite democratic - as
>long as they don't touch on the basic conditions.
Class collaboration? I think most of the capitalists are living in Miami or
elsewhere in the US today. Obviously the confiscation of the United fruit
and sugar companies and the closing down of the casinos and hotels did not
change anything according to you. I disagree..
>The millions were not involved in *taking* these reforms - so more or
>less they *were* served to them by Fidel. The capitalist class was not
>destroyed - in a situation of internal collapse - as soon as the new
>regime had taken over sugar production (some 90% of national exports).
>Castro had not wanted it so, but internal collapse, the depence of the
>bourgeoisie on the US-links, and finally amplified by US blockade made
>it happen so.
Yes, it was the leadership that did this. And it was done in a bureacratic
way. But it was done! That is the point. The problem here was that Peasant
gurriella warfare canot not replace proletarian revolution. There fore
"Trotskyist" called Cuba a deformed workers state.However it does not mean
that we do not recognise the fact that a revolutionary overthrow did
actually take place and was replaced by something else. A step forward and
to be defended. According to you nothing happened and therefore one should
abstain from taking a position..
>This in no way takes away the obligation of socialists to defend Cuba
>tooth and nail against imperialism. But the worst thing we could do to
>aid this defence would be to paint Castros Cuba red. Read your Lenin
You and i both know that Trotskyists do not paint Cuba as red. We do say
that there is a neccessity for a political revolution against the bureaucracy..
>I long for Louis's investigations about similarities and differences
>between Costa Rica and Cuba. What would your position have been if
>Castro had not found out two years after the revolution ... whoops
>that it was communist?
Yes, i bet you do. Just think how the state caps could speculate in all this
then. But ifs are ifs and reality is reality. The problem is that the state
capitalists do not see living reality and have discovered a theroy where one
can scream a plague on both your houses. However i notice that you and
others do come out quite clearly in defense of Cuba! Good! But where were
you when defending the Soviet Union against imperialism was the key issue
facing us. Hiding under the bed? I,m curios?
malecki in exile
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism